Item IV.B (Discuss MC Bookstore’s Textbook Prices) was postponed to the next Senate meeting (February 1, 2001). Discussion on Item IV.A is expected to take up most of today’s meeting. President McKay introduced Vice-Chancellor Kinsella to those attending today’s meeting.

There was no oral communication from the public at today’s meeting.

Vice-Chancellor Kinsella acknowledged that a number of items listed in the Mission College’s Tech Plan, dated February 1997, have been implemented fairly successfully. The district has certain responsibilities for technology, and the instructional programs have primary responsibility for the development of instructional technology. His primary concern is is to ensure that the two plans are appropriately integrated. This task requires joint communication to determine what it is we want to do, how we can support each other and communicate the college’s needs in order to determine what the support requirements will be. He has some concern that the colleges may go in a different direction, with different emphasis on how to support the individual plans as they develop and unfold. He acknowledged the different technological needs between the two colleges, and the emphasis will most likely be different, in terms of how each college needs to be supported. From his perspective, there is a need to assure that resources are allocated appropriately so that support can be provided for whatever forms of technology are pursued by each college.

He is hopeful that the district will receive additional funds from the state. In past years, the district has received approximately $44 million of on-going funds, with some designated assignments. This year, the state funded a portion of the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) model. This model consists of nineteen elements, with a portion for equipment. This particular model recognizes that there is much support required to keep the equipment functional on an on-going basis. He noted that, in the past, many districts expanded beyond their capability to support and maintain their systems. This year, the system is trying to provide substantial amounts of money for the colleges. Everyone recognizes that the students and the workforce demand technological training and/or knowledge. The struggle is to determine how to identify the appropriate technology, how to incorporate it institutionally and support it so that it will function. If there isn’t adequate maintenance and back-up support for systems, it is difficult to ensure that they will be an effective tool for instruction.

This year, the state funded $25,000 to each college to develop Technology Plans. An RFP has been submitted by the district to assist in the development of a comprehensive technology plan that will allow us to deal with both colleges’ technology directions, the support structure required to maintain the technology, and identify the costs for implementation of the plan. Since much of the technology will be new and include expansion in areas not previously considered, it is likely that the costs will be higher than expected. Three companies have responded to the RFP, and a committee comprised of district staff and faculty from both colleges (Mina Jahan, Pat Hudak and Ian Walton from Mission College) will select a consultant to assist in this project. It is of primary interest to all to see how the instructional programs develop and how technology is identified as a tool for the delivery of instruction.

Dianne presented several areas of concern that those present might wish to discuss:

1. Technology Plan

a) The centralization vs decentralization of service delivery.

b) The future of Distance Learning and its support on a college level.

c) Datatel concerns

d) The current status of technology at Mission College, particularly since the college’s Instructional Dean of Technology position is vacant. The responsibilities of that

position have been delegated to a number of people, and President O’Hearn is currently

seeking an interim dean of technology. Once interested candidates have been identified,

a selection process will take place.

2. Instructional Support.

3. Support in general.

4. Maintenance of existing systems and support for future development (relative to Datatel).

5. Communication and Support for Instructional Technology .

6. Communication and Support of Information Systems.

7. Parity within the district.

The first point of discussion was centralization versus decentralization. Pat Hudak reported that the Instructional Technology Committee members discussed their concerns relative to Information Systems (IS). The concerns included the following.

• Lack of communication between IS and the college’s departments,

• Lack of service orientation on the part of staff,

• Difficulty with IS working within the Mission College structure,

• Lack of accountability,

• Lack of service level agreements recommended by Duncan group in last planning process,

• Lack of articulation between hardware and software support persons,

• Lack of availability of Help Desk after 5:00 p.m. and difficulty reaching specific people after certain hours and during the absence of Susan Rios.

• Lack of communication and coordination regarding staffing changes at the college,

• Lack of appropriately trained personnel to back up staff on vacation or absent, postponing necessary tasks until primary staff returns to campus.

At this point, Steve Kinsella stated that the district is currently undergoing its Service and Facilities Master Plan. The district will submit a users survey to approximately 100 people in order to determine what support is needed to cover the needs of each college in accordance with the individual E&FMPs. The information resulting from the survey will be reviewed and analyzed.

Relative to staffing - Steve stated that it is difficult to secure appropriate staff. Until positions can be filled appropriately, the department may have to use people with an aptitude or an interest in specific areas and train them, which is costly. Some of the funding for training is funded through TTIP, but it is not enough to do the kind of training necessary to provide us with employees that have the skills needed to do the job. The department was staffed, originally, to handle a certain amount of activity. If we have expanded beyond that and have not made adjustments to the staff, we have created a problem that must be resolved. We need to define the necessary services and assembling the resources behind it so we can provide the service.

Dianne remarked that there is a tension that occurs relative to the district’s budget model. Any funding for Central Services comes off the top, and, therefore, there is less money for the colleges. The colleges want the services, but do not want to give up more money to build a larger Central Service infrastructure. There needs to be a balance. For a number of years, DBAC has discussed the development of a productivity measure for Central Services; at this time, no standard is applied. The colleges must be accountable and are held to WSCH/FTE goals that drive the budget. Steve stated that as the assessment progresses, the staffing, skill sets, and the appropriate location for service to occur and how to control it (centralization vs decentralization) will be reviewed.

In order to advance technology in the district, Steve acknowledged the need to concentrate on core issues and assess them independently and objectively, which is often best done by outside people. We need to utilize the scientific method for assessment first, then we can look at the human factors. It may be determined that the expectations are not in keeping with what is available. The budget development procedure determines how resources are allocated. The state gives us a certain amount of money for growth and cost of living allowances. We have to compete with a high wage base and it may be that we have gone beyond what we are capable of supporting and we are currently feeling the effects. However, we cannot turn back. The question is how can we best maintain what we have. We need to maximize the money we spend on technology and obtain the most technology possible for use in the classroom and/or for student access, so that when students leave the district, they are prepared for the work force with the appropriate technology.

Discussion veered to Datatel, noting that the main issue of concern is registration. A third mock registration will be conducted soon, and the next three months are critical for the students module. Any problems that arise will probably appear during summer school registration in mid-April. There has been a problem with billing that has been resolved and the financial aid student population has not yet been tested. There will be a period of adjustment and there are critical areas that must be addressed. One concern is that the emphasis of the training and the consultant’s services has been on state reporting as opposed to student services. Another concern involves the possible loss of data in the transfer to Datatel from Santa Rosa.

A major issue raised during discussion was the maintenance of the PARIS and STAR systems during and after the Datatel conversions. It was stressed that PARIS and STAR are integral to the functioning of the colleges and have been developed at great expense by the colleges. Mission College is currently contracting with outside sources to maintain and augment these services. However, due to network and database security systems, these consultants are not allowed access to make necessary upgrades and maintenance adjustments. The goal is to secure the system while allowing the college to function as needed.

In closing, Vice-Chancellor Kinsella emphasized his willingness to consider all issues and encouraged staff and faculty to communicate their concerns to him. This will enhance his ability to understand the issues and assist him in process improvements. Dianne thanked Steve for his very forthright presentation and for his serious consideration of the concerns and comments presented at today’s meeting.

This item was postponed to the next Senate meeting.

The minutes for the December 5, 2000, meeting were accepted and approved as submitted (M/S/P - Jackins/

1. Dianne announced that James Van Tassel has been selected to represent the Technology Division on the Senate to replace Phil DeMarco.

** 2. The MC Academic Senate is seeking nominations for the Dia del Maestro Teacher Award from MC students and parents. Please watch your e-mail for an announcement listing all important

information to post in your classrooms and division bulletin boards. Donnelle McGee was nominated by the college last year and he received the award.

3. Black History Month will kick off with a Gospel Night, next Thursday, February 1, 2001, in the Campus Center, from 6:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. Senator McGee advised that a full calendar of events is planned and will be advertised extensively.

4. President O’Hearn has scheduled information Open Office Hours in Conference Room A for

drop-in visits on Monday, January 29th, 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., and on Tuesday, February

20th, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

A. Curriculum Committee - No report was made at today’s meeting.

B. Staff Recognition - No nominations were presented today.

C. Committee Appointments

1. Confirm Academic Council Appointment - Ellen McAllister volunteered to serve on this committee and her appointment was confirmed by the Senate (M/S/U - Aker- Martin/Estrada).

2. District Services and Facilities Master Plan Committee - The Mission College and West Valley College Educational and Facilities Master Plans (E&FMP) are at various points of completion. In order to obtain a complete picture, these plans must necessarily be integrated with a plan for the district, particularly relative to resource allocations and to determine the priorities required for Central Services. It is expected that the majority of the work will be completed this spring, with a draft readied this summer for presentation to the Board in the fall. The committee includes nine functional teams, and the Senate has been asked

to appoint Senate representatives to the Information Systems (IS) Team and the Human Resources (HR) Team. Ian Walton and Pat Hudak volunteered to serve on the IS team and

Jane Patton volunteered to serve on the HR component. The Senators unanimously approved

these appointments to the S&FMP committee (M/S/U - Akers-Martin/Estrada).

1. Instructional Technology Committee - In addition to the committee’s concerns already discussed under Item IV.A, Pat reported that Joseph Giroux made a presentation on microcomputer standards for network deployment. Pat will report back to the Senate any

plans pertinent to this deployment.

2. Distance Learning Committee - No report was presented at today’s meeting.

3. Staff Development - * Betty Grayson reported that this year’s theme for staff development is to honor Mission College. Staff Development is seeking departments interested

in preparing mini-presentations to educate and inform the college community as to what the department offers. * She asked the Senators for assistance in informing the Associate Faculty

and classified staff members within their divisions that they too qualify for staff development

funding - $800 every other year for Associate Faculty. $800 per year for full-time faculty, and

$800 per year for full-time classified staff. The next application deadline is January 29, 2001.

* There will be additional technology preparation workshops, to be announced on the next Blue Sheet. Gail Pederson, Susan Wisner, Frank Diaz, and John Nakahama will be available

in the Staff Development Resource Center for assistance.

4. Datatel Implementation Committee - * Pat Hudak reported that 30 PC work stations have been purchased with Datatel funds and are to be divided equally throughout the district.

* Pat advised that the question regarding the level of MAC compatible with Datatel has not yet

been resolved. * There is some concern regarding the printing capability of Colleague; Colleague has to be configured for each network printer in each area. * Some problems experienced in Financial Aid and in Admissions & Records have been resolved.

5. Workforce Development Committee - No report was made.

1. GAP - Dianne advised that GAP has been working on a list of requests for Big Ticket Items (BTI); requests have been received for approximately $3 million. It appears that some requests can be recommended for funding in stages over a three year period. It was decided that a group of representatives from instruction and a group of representatives from student services will each review the requests, and prepare a prioritized list for the entire committee’s consideration. This method has understandably delayed the CBAC process for one to two weeks, and the timeline has been revised accordingly.

2. District Council (DC) - The council has been discussing the S&FMP and Dianne will keep the Senate apprised as the plan progresses. The council is also working on a model for alternative calendars. The DC is considering the issue and has assigned Clo Hampton to chair a Calendar Committee to consider all the ramifications that an alternative calendar presents and to make a recommendation to the District Council. It was determined that the colleges cannot proceed with an alternative calendar proposal until all these issues are considered and resolved, and will not be able to implement such a calendar by next Fall. Dianne will keep the Senate apprised of progress on this matter.

3. CBAC - The committee would be reviewing the budget allocations, however, as indicated, the process has been delayed until the BTI list has been allocated (see Item VIII.1).

4. Others - On behalf of the MC Academic Senate and the entire college community, Dianne expressed her deep appreciation to those people who continued to work diligently over the semester break to ensure that the CIT program would be up and running for this semester. Kudos to Pat Hudak, Mina Jahan, and Randy Wu for their commitment and dedication to this task.

Correspondence

1. Letter dated December 28, 2000, from the state Chancellor’s Office re: Regulation Revisions - Distance Education.

2. E-Mail message from Chancellor Salter re: District Strategic Planning Process.

3. Letter dated January 2001, from the Advisory Committee for Work-Based Learning &

Employment Services re: Faculty Work-Based Learning.

4. Letter dated December 19, 2000, from the state Chancellor’s Office, General Counsel, re:

Update on Student Fees.

5. Letter dated December 15, 2000, from the state Chancellor’s Office, re: Grading Symbol for Unofficial Withdrawal and Composition of the College Curriculum Committee.

1. The agenda for the January 24, 2001, meeting of the District Council.

2. The agenda for the January 18, 2001, meeting of the M-WV Land Corporation.

3. The Service Learning News issue from the state Chancellor’s Office.

4. Off Track issue from the FACCC, dated Winter 2001.

5. Issue of League in Action from the CCLC.

1. The 2001 ED>Net Conference on New Economy, New Workforce, New Collaborations will be held in San Francisco, March 12-14, 2001.

1. Review Technology Committee Structure (Senate/McKay)

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. (M/S/U - VanTassel/Bell-Cheung). These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.